USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 1 of 89 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Nos. 13-5368, 13-5371, 14-5021 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 13-1261 (Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan) & No. 13-1441 (Hon. Amy Berman Jackson) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ JOINT PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ROBERT J. MUISE, ESQ. NOEL J. FRANCISCO AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER ERIC DREIBAND P.O. Box 131098 JONES DAY Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. (734) 635-3756 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 879-3939 [email protected] DAVID YERUSHALMI, ESQ. AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Roman 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201 Catholic Archbishop of Washington Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] (646) 262-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Priests for Life USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 2 of 89 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Appellants/Cross-Appellees’ counsel certify as follows: A. Parties No. 13-5368 Plaintiffs-Appellants are Priests for Life, Father Frank Pavone, Alveda King, and Janet Morana. Defendants-Appellees are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas E. Perez, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; the United States Department of Health and Human Services; the United States Department of Labor; and the United States Department of the Treasury. No. 13-5371 & No. 14-5021 Appellants/Cross-Appellees are the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington (the “Archdiocese”), the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (“CCA”), Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc. (“ACHS), Don Bosco Cristo Rey High School of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (“Don Bosco”), Mary of Nazareth Roman Catholic Elementary School, Inc. (“Mary of Nazareth”), Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc. (“Catholic Charities”), Victory Housing, Inc. (“Victory Housing”), the Catholic USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 3 of 89 Information Center, Inc. (“CIC”), and the Catholic University of America (“CUA”). Thomas Aquinas College was also a plaintiff in the district court, and is a Cross-Appellee here. Appellees/Cross-Appellants are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas E. Perez, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; the United States Department of Health and Human Services; the United States Department of Labor; and the United States Department of the Treasury. The American Civil Liberties Union supported Appellees/Cross-Appellants before the district court as an amicus curiae. B. Rulings Under Review Appellants in No. 13-5368 are appealing from the order and supporting memorandum opinion of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered on December 19, 2013, granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and denying Appellants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The order and supporting memorandum opinion appear on the district court’s docket at entries 35 and 36, respectively. USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 4 of 89 Appellants in No. 13-5371 seek review of the December 20, 2013, judgment and memorandum opinion, granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, issued by the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Case No. 13-1441, District Court Docket Nos. 47, 48. C. Related Cases Appellants are aware of the following related cases involving non-profit plaintiffs currently pending in the United States Courts of Appeals: Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, No. 13–3853. (7th Cir.); Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius, No. 14-427 (2d Cir.); Geneva Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 14- 1374 (3d Cir.); Sebelius v. East Tex. Baptist Univ., No. 14-20112 (5th Cir.); Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, (5th Cir.) (docket pending) Mich. Catholic Conference v. Sebelius, No. 13-2723, Catholic Diocese v. Sebelius, No. 13-6640 (6th Cir.) (consol.); Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, No. 13-1540 (10th Cir.); S. Nazarene Univ. v. Sebelius, No. 14-6026 (10th Cir.); Reaching Souls Int’l v. Sebelius, No. 14-6028 (10th Cir.). USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 5 of 89 Appellants are aware of the following related cases involving for-profit plaintiffs currently pending in the United States Courts of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 (certiorari granted) Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 (certiorari granted) Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-482 (petition for certiorari pending) Gilardi v. HHS, et al., No. 13-567 (petition for certiorari pending) Korte v. Sebelius, No. 13-937 (petition for certiorari pending) Annex Medical, Inc., v. Sebelius, No. 13-1118 (8th Cir.) (injunction pending appeal granted) O’Brien v. U.S. Dept. of HHS, No. 12-3357 (8th Cir.) (injunction pending appeal granted) February 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 6 of 89 /S/ Robert J. Muise /s/ Noel J. Francisco ROBERT J. MUISE NOEL J. FRANCISCO AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER ERIC DREIBAND P.O. Box 131098 JONES DAY Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. (734) 635-3756 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 879-3939 [email protected] DAVID YERUSHALMI AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Roman 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201 Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington [email protected] (646) 262-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Priests for Life USCA Case #13-5371 Document #1482089 Filed: 02/28/2014 Page 7 of 89 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. iii GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF PERTINENT AUTHORITIES .................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 6 A. The Mandate ......................................................................................... 6 1. Exemptions from the Mandate ................................................... 7 2. The “Accommodation” .............................................................. 9 B. The Parties .......................................................................................... 11 1. PFL Plaintiffs ........................................................................... 11 2. RCAW Plaintiffs ....................................................................... 13 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 20 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 21 I. THE MANDATE VIOLATES RFRA ......................................................... 21 A. The Mandate Substantially Burdens Plaintiffs’ Exercise of Religion .............................................................................................. 22 1. Plaintiffs Exercise Their Religious Beliefs by Refusing to Comply with the Mandate ........................................................ 24 2. The Mandate Places “Substantial Pressure” on Plaintiffs to Violate Their Religious Beliefs ........................................... 28 B. The District Courts’ Decisions Were Erroneous ................................ 31 1. The RCAW District Court Erred